Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 15, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 9, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Thomas Sewell attempted to recruit Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings, into the Lads Society?

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by TarnishedPath (talk), Alalch E. (talk) and PARAKANYAA (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'll review. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is new enough and long enough, well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, copyvio-compliant, and presentable. The hook is cited by a reliable source, <200 characters, and is interesting. QPQ is not required.
A potential problem with the hook is that it may unduly focus on negative aspects of a living person. I personally think it is fine but I have gotten it wrong in the past so I will request a second opinion from a user better versed in DYK. Note that in this source the subject of the article is personally admitting to what is stated in the hook. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the GA reviewer: I would not believe it to unduly focus on the negative aspects of Sewell, given my understanding of the word, given what he does and what he is notable for. It's not like he is a well regarded person who happened to do one bad thing and we're making it the hook. It's not a crime or something that he denied doing, in any case. Just my thoughts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, good justification. I'm happy to tick it off. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of Guard and Motivation Details

[edit]

TarnishedPath, removing my edits under the guise of WP:UNDUE is not only baseless but increasingly tiresome. The details I added—stating that the guard placed his hand on the camera lens and touched Hersant’s shoulder- are backed by video evidence, Sewell’s corroboration in court, and multiple reliable sources. These are observable facts, not Sewell’s “claims,” as you’ve repeatedly tried to frame them.

The inclusion of Sewell’s statement that the attack was not racially motivated is also fully justified. It was part of his court testimony and widely reported. Whether you like it or not, presenting his position alongside the court’s findings is required for compliance with WP:NPOV.

To clarify what I’m proposing to add: The guard’s actions leading to the incident: "The guard placed his hand on the camera lens Hersant was using to record them and later touched Hersant’s shoulder.” Sourced from Nine News video footage.

Sewell’s position and court findings: "Sewell later claimed the attack was not racially motivated, stating that he would have acted the same way regardless of the guard’s race. Magistrate Ballek noted that the man ‘had no time to defend himself’ but ruled there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was racially motivated. Sewell also claimed he acted in self-defence, a claim rejected by the court.” Sourced from ABC News reporting.

Removing this information fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and completeness. If you have policy-based concerns about these specific additions, present them clearly - otherwise, the edits should remain. Evoren (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sewell's testimony in court means jackshit. Of course he would say it wasn't racially motivated and that he was acting in self-defence. The fact that he is a neo-Nazi and has done nazi salutes outside of court demonstrates that he is absolutely full of shit about his attack on a black man, who is accomplice had moments before told to "Dance, monkey dance", not being racially motivated. Sewell has absolutely no creditability and allowing your edit to stay in the article would have been violating WP:NPOV as it is WP:FRINGE.
Introduce the material again without obtaining consensus and you will be reverted. TarnishedPathtalk 07:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, dismissing Sewell’s testimony outright because of his neo-Nazi affiliation and other actions, while understandable emotionally, does not align with Wikipedia’s policies. This is a Wikipedia page specifically about Thomas Sewell, and including his statements—as reported in reliable sources like ABC News—is directly relevant. The testimony is not presented as fact but as part of the documented court proceedings. Ignoring it violates WP:NPOV by cherry-picking what to include and presenting an incomplete account.
Additionally, the court addressed these claims directly. Magistrate Ballek ruled there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was racially motivated, while also rejecting Sewell’s self-defence argument. Including both Sewell’s statements and the court’s findings ensures neutrality and balance, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.
Here’s what I propose again, with proper attribution:
"Sewell later claimed the attack was not racially motivated, stating that he would have acted the same way regardless of the guard’s race. Magistrate Ballek noted that the man ‘had no time to defend himself’ but ruled there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was racially motivated. Sewell also claimed he acted in self-defence, a claim rejected by the court.”
This addition adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:V by presenting Sewell’s position alongside the court’s conclusions. Omitting this context while keeping only condemning details skews the article, which goes against Wikipedia’s purpose of providing a balanced, accurate account.
If you disagree, I welcome a policy-based argument. Otherwise, removing sourced, directly relevant material on a page specifically about Sewell is unjustified. Evoren (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take your WP:WIKILAWYERING elsewhere. Add the material without consensus and you will be reverted. TarnishedPathtalk 08:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has been opened regarding the above disputed material. All input is welcome. Evoren (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the Inclusion of Guard Actions and Court Findings on Motivations

[edit]

Should the article include the guard’s actions (grabbing the camera lens and touching Hersant’s shoulder) and the court’s findings regarding Sewell’s claims on racial motivation and self-defence?

Evoren (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Discussion

[edit]
The proposed additions aim to provide balanced and complete context for the altercation involving Thomas Sewell:
  1. The guard’s actions: "The guard placed his hand on the camera lens Hersant was using to record them and later touched Hersant’s shoulder."
  2. Sewell’s claims and court findings: "Sewell later claimed the attack was not racially motivated, stating that he would have acted the same way regardless of the guard’s race. Magistrate Ballek ruled that the man ‘had no time to defend himself’ but noted there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was racially motivated. Sewell also claimed he acted in self-defence, a claim rejected by the court."
    • Reported by ABC News and directly tied to the documented court proceedings.
The additions provide critical context for the incident by accurately reporting the guard’s actions and the court’s findings. Including Sewell’s statements—alongside the court’s conclusions—ensures compliance with WP:NPOV and avoids cherry-picking facts that could create bias in an article about Thomas Sewell. Omitting this information risks presenting an incomplete account.
TarnishedPath argues that Sewell’s statements are not credible due to his neo-Nazi affiliation and subsequent behavior (e.g., Nazi salutes outside court). They believe including Sewell’s claims gives undue weight to unreliable testimony and violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.
The question for this RfC is whether the inclusion of these verified details sourced from reliable outlets and supported by video evidence—adds necessary context and balance to the article. Evoren (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
In regards to the guard placing their hands on Jacob Hersant (a neo-nazi associate of Thomas Sewell). The footage does not demonstrate that occurred and we only have claims by Sewell that it did. Notably moments before Sewell's unprovoked assault on the black man, Hersant had said to the guard "Dance, monkey dance" (heard in the footage). Now even if the footage did show what is claimed in the comment above by Evoren, which it doesn't, we shouldn't rely on it by itself as the footage itself is a primary source and WP:BLPPRIMARY counsels us to "[e]xercise extreme caution in using primary sources". Notably Sewell's claims of self-defence were rejected by the court hearing the charges against him and he was found guilty.
In relation to Sewell's claim that the attack on the black man wasn't racially motivated. The article in it's present state doesn't state that it was, so including Sewell's statement that it wasn't doesn't make sense at all. Additionally it would be a WP:NPOV violation as it is offering WP:FRINGE claims by a neo-nazi, that an attack on a black man moments after their accomplice had said to them "Dance, monkey dance" wasn't racially motivated. Notably Sewell did a nazi salute outside of court after he was sentenced for the assault. TarnishedPathtalk 01:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Wikipedia article about Thomas Sewell, so including his documented statements and the full context of events is directly relevant. The guard’s actions—touching the camera lens and Hersant’s shoulder -are supported not only by footage but also by multiple reliable sources, including the ABC. WP:BLPPRIMARY allows primary sources when corroborated by secondary sources, which is the case here.
On the racial motivation claim, presenting Sewell’s statement alongside the court’s findings—both rejecting self-defence and ruling no evidence beyond reasonable doubt of racial motivation - ensures WP:NPOV. Omitting these details while retaining only condemning ones creates a skewed narrative that does not reflect Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and completeness. Evoren (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, this article does not exist to document every last lie and deception that comes out of that neo-Nazis mouth. WP:ONUS makes that perfectly clear. Additionally WP:NPOV does not require that we cover their blatant bullshit either. Quoting from WP:WEIGHT (the most pertinent part of the NPOV policy), "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". The claims and views of neo-Nazis are not a significant viewpoint, in fact they are well and truly WP:FRINGE, therefore being neutral requires we not put them up as being on equal footing from mainstream claims and views. If we did cover Sewell's claims as being on equal footing that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE and therefore a policy violation. The fact that this article doesn't state that the attack was racially motivated, which it clearly was in any case, should give a strong indication that we should never consider covering the opposing view that it wasn't. TarnishedPathtalk 06:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, while I appreciate your concerns about WP:ONUS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE, I believe your interpretation misses the nuance of the policies in question.
Firstly, this is a biographical article specifically about Thomas Sewell, and WP:ONUS does not mean excluding relevant, reliably sourced information. The fact that Sewell's statement was made in court, reported by reputable outlets like ABC News, and directly addressed by the presiding magistrate gives it enough weight to warrant inclusion—not as truth but as part of the record. Neutrality in this context means presenting the full picture, including Sewell's claims alongside the court’s rejection of those claims. WP:WEIGHT does not call for outright exclusion of minority or fringe views when they are part of the subject's documented history. Instead, it requires presenting those views proportionally. The article can include Sewell’s claims while clearly contextualising them with the court’s findings and broader criticisms, thus avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE.
The argument that “this article does not exist to document every last lie” seems more emotional than policy-based. This is not about amplifying Sewell’s viewpoint; it’s about documenting notable aspects of his biography as reported by reliable sources. Refusing to include this information risks making the article appear incomplete or biased, contrary to the intent of WP:NPOV. Evoren (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Per WP:ONUS, While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. My interpretation doesn't miss the meaning of the WP:PAG that I quote, as evidenced by every other editor stating that I sum up why we shouldn't go with your suggestions. I suggest you go and actually read the policies, as it is clear that you haven't, and stop engaging in WP:POVPUSH. TarnishedPathtalk 07:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify how including verified, directly relevant context does not “improve the article.” Evoren (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm not going to repeat myself. TarnishedPathtalk 09:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its current state is an incomplete telling of events. You can consult the video evidence aired on innumerable news channels to see that the current description is misleading - it suggests that Hersant made the dance monkey comments and then Sewell just immediately violently attacked the guard. It also doesn't help that such a telling doesn't give insight into the later proceedings and charges laid, where the judge decides that it was not self defence and charges Sewell - the current description would leave readers confused as to how there was ever a self defence claim. Evoren (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You're wrong. TarnishedPathtalk 10:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's objectively an incomplete telling… Evoren (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Evoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You're repeating yourself. TarnishedPathtalk 11:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've made zero substantive arguments as to why the events - which are already included - shouldn't be reported accurately. You've tried to attack the sources, tried to attack the reasoning, even the policy, yet all have fallen short as to conclusively explaining why key and verifiably true details of the event should not be included in an article about the person whom the events surround. Evoren (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong again and I suggest you address the topic of the RFC and not me. TarnishedPathtalk 12:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not intended to be a compendium for every quantum of information, and it is not intended to be a courtroom play-by-play. That it is "biographical information" is irrelevant because of those reasons. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to both suggested changes per TarnishedPath, I don't think there's much for me to add here. It's most definitely a fringe opinion to add his claim that his action wasn't racially motivated; as if a neo-nazi attacking a black man and doing salutes outside court could be considered nothing to do with racism. GraziePrego (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. TarnishedPath sums it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FropFrop (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes As long as this is reliably sourced and is written in the context that these were Sewell claims. I don't understand how that violates NPOV or "per BLP" either. Much of the opposition reads like "Sewell is horrible, here's the horrible things he said, so it's okay to leave this out reliably sourced information out." Is it really necessary to quote that racist stuff twice in one survey response? This is really a question of sourcing. If the sourcing is good then there's no policy basis for leaving it out. If we have sources we can say what happened in the court case and we can say what the defendant claimed. Nemov (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because there's no point rebutting something we don't even say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The later Guardian article describes the confrontation in greater detail: After ACA staff declined to meet with Sewell, his cameraman Jacob Hersant began filming Sewell inside the foyer. A security guard walked over, placed his hand over the camera lens and told the pair to stop filming, directing them to an area out the front of the building. The pair eventually agreed to go outside, but the guard followed them after they started filming near the door. They finally listened to the man’s directions and moved further away. The guard then began making a dancing-type motion to the camera. Hersant taunted and mocked the guard, saying: “Dance monkey, dance.” The guard told him “watch yourself, bro, I’m not a dance monkey” and touched Hersant on his shoulder, in an effort to push him backwards, before Sewell leapt in and began attacking the guard.[1]
So it seems to me that in the interest of NPOV a little more detail would be appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass, there is a second part to the RFC question, asking if we should include Sewell's claims that the attack wasn't racially motivated. What are your thoughts on that? TarnishedPathtalk 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't see that it would hurt to include the claim - readers can still look at the evidence and draw their own conclusions. Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you think that it should be included even though the claim that it was racially motivated isn't in the article? If we do include the claim that it wasn't, should we then look to include a material stating that it was (I'm pretty sure source material exists which states that it was)? TarnishedPathtalk 10:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have much interest or experience in articles about crime/criminals, but I assume that the norm in such articles is that the defendant's defence - no matter how preposterous - will be included. In this instance, it appears that Sewell represented himself in court and that part of his defence was that the attack wasn't racially motivated and he would have done the same to anybody regardless in the circumstances, so it would seem to me that it belongs in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that if we had more detail on the specific incident and the court case, but as of now I feel it is undue weight, as we don't really cover any of the bit by bit trial details, just he did it and then was sentenced, as it's only one of many Incidents he has been involved with. I guess we could trim the premier statement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, we could probably remove the race and statement bit altogether. I was the person who suggested that be added, but if it would make the article better then I have no objection to its removal. It's probably notable in some sense because it was part of the commentary on the case, but if it was agreed it probably had nothing to do with the motive, at the depth of detail we are currently covering it it might be undue weight. But whatever everyone else thinks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it would make much difference to your reasoning, but I believe they were represented. TarnishedPathtalk 19:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, mainly because there's no point rebutting something we don't even say. per PARAKANYAA, and the claim itself seems to boil down to 'I would have reacted just as badly if the person had been white' , which ain't a great defence anyway. On a general point, Brenton Tarrant seems over-mentioned for someone whose only connection to the subject appears to be the subject's own claims that Tarrant 'almost joined them'. This seems like a blatant attempt by Sewell at whatever the opposite of 'guilt by association' is - gaining some kind of kudos by claiming association with the guilty? Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pincrete, I've just removed one mention of Tarrant from the views section as that was repeating what is already stated in the early activities section. TarnishedPathtalk 10:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pincrete The Tarrant connection is mentioned in a lot of the academic discussion about Sewell. The news moved on from it, though academia sure didn't. We mention it at about the level they do. AFAIK it was also the first time he had really made the news in a major way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All academic discussion of Sewell to date that I have read is in three boats:
    • Tarrant recruitment attempt
    • The guard assault
    • Miscellaneous NSN stuff
    PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TarnishedPath has just removed a 'repeat' piece of text, which may well have fixed the problem. The connection should clearly be mentioned, but doesn't benefit from repetition IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to both. The reason Sewell said the attack wasn't racially motivated is because the magistrate described Hersant's comment 'Dance, monkey, dance' as a "despicable racial taunt". These sources also say the same thing; security guard, who was also racially abused during the attack, Hersant made a racial slur towards a black guard, video report. Just because there's no mention that it was indeed a racial slur by Hersant presently in the article, doesn't mean there shouldn't be. Sources seem to think it's relevant, and also Sewell's response that it wasn't racially motivated. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaidnoway, I'm not sure how to read your comment. Are you stating that it should be covered that the attack was racially motivated or that we should be covering Sewell's denial? TarnishedPathtalk 19:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What the article says is Hersant said to the guard, "dance monkey, dance". What the reliable sources say is that comment Hersant made is a racial slur, and the judge noted it as well. So that should be included. When I first read the article, I wondered why that was left out, considering that three of the four refs at the end of that sentence all mention it. Seems like it is relevant information, if sources are reporting on it. And after Sewell appeared in court, the sources all appear to include Sewell's denial he made as well, so that seems to be relevant information. So while we can't definitively state the attack was racially motivated, we can say Hersant's comment was a racial slur, and Sewell denied the attack was racially motivated in court, per the sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not treated as significant in the sources and we're not required to include every single thing the subject says; it's particularly unusual because this is Sewell responding to something we don't currently include. The bit about the guard also feels like WP:SYNTH in that it's trying to present it as exculpatory in a way that the sources really don't. --Aquillion (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So would you support removing any details of the guard's race? Evoren (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would. If the argument is none of the other "context" is relevant or significant, then the guard's race is not relevant either. Seems like cherry-picking the sources, which is discouraged. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Talk:National Socialist Network

[edit]

There is a RFC at Talk:National Socialist Network#RfC on Including the Riverina Chapter in the NSN Infobox. TarnishedPathtalk 03:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Activist

[edit]

Activist is not a positive term. Activist is merely advocating for a cause, no matter how abhorrent that is. Agitator is NPOV and is not well attested and editorializing. This change is without consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. In fact I've been in discussions on other articles where other editors have argued in a direction that it is a negative term (which isn't the case either). TarnishedPathtalk 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for kicking off the discussion. "Activist" conveys a flavour of legitimacy within its spectrum of meanings. It is clearly not a descriptor of mere advocacy, which is why it would never be used for advocates and perpetrators of baby-eating. It is not commonly used for violent criminal supporters of anti-semitic genocide & similar horrors (like the subject of this article) but we do commonly use it for active supporters of legitimate causes like free speech or civil rights. Any claim that "activist" can be appropriately applied in this encyclopedia to agitators for monstrous causes (like genocide, mass-murder, the sexual exploitation and/or harm of children, etc.) is clearly ludicrous & a seriously inappropriate & WP:UNDUE prescription for Wikipedia.
Therefore, it is a violation of WP:NPOV neutrality to keep "activist" as a descriptor of Sewell, especially in the first sentence of the article's lead. For neutrality & accuracy we need to change it to something slightly more appropriate that describes the subject's behavior documented in the article, like "agitator" (since Sewell has been deliberately engaging in agitprop provocations) or similar. What do other editors think? Bluevista99 (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluevista99 That is not true, activist is a neutral term. Pedophile advocates are routinely labeled just that, pro-pedophile advocates or activists. Activist is not a positive term and I have no idea why you would think it would be. See for example, Ian Dunn (activist), Frits Bernard, Peter Hayman (diplomat), Tom O'Carroll, plus tons and tons more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluevista99, in two RFCs about the first sentence of the lead at Andy Ngo (that I've been involved in, but there has been many more) I've had editors arguing in the opposite direction from you that use of the term "right-wing activist" would be a pejorative in relation to Mr Ngo. I don't buy either argument, that it lends legitimacy or that it is a pejorative.
Here's some definitions:
  1. Google describes activist as a person who campaigns to bring about political or social change. Notably any instance of political or social change can be both negative and positive (depending on your persective).
  2. Cambridge dictions says that an activist is a person who believes strongly in political or social change and takes part in activities such as public protests to try to make this happen. Again no connotations about whether the term is positive or negative, because as above political or social change can be positive or negative. Political and social change is rarely linear.
  3. Merriam Webster says they are one who advocates or practices activism : a person who uses or supports strong actions (such as public protests) in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.
  4. Collins says that [a]n activist is a person who works to bring about political or social changes by campaigning in public or working for an organization.
Following on from PARAKANUAA's examples, I've seen clearly far-right WP:SPAs attempt to introduce the terms trans rights activists and LGTB activists into articles numerous times (one example is at Moira Deeming) because they see the conjunction of the word activists with other terms that they deem to be left-wing as being a pejorative. TarnishedPathtalk 03:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: Traces of rant follow; I should rewrite/cull this but it's 2.48am & I need sleep, so please excuse]
"Activist" is not neutral, especially in Sewell's case. If it was neutral, this discussion would not be taking place. It has the sense of an accolade that implies legitimacy. Clearly, as the "baby-eating advocacy" example amply demonstrates, in such egregious cases the description "activist" is self-evidently non-neutral & WP:UNDUE because it has shades of meaning & common usage that convey acceptability of opinions & actions. Apparently, promoting baby-eating is still not legitimate, which is why "activist" would never be appropriate usage in such a horrific case. You might use it in satire to good effect, but in a serious attempt to build an encyclopedia, never. Similarly, Sewell is another egregious case & "activist" conveys legitimacy where there is none, therefore it is a non-neutral violation of WP:NPOV as well as a misleading & deceptive description which needs to be replaced to restore both neutrality & accuracy as per his documented malign behavior. Since this involves his calculated agitprop, "agitator" is an appropriate replacement, but I'm open to better suggestions.
On the issue of the creepy child-sex advocates, it's a bit more complex because of the changes in culture, custom & consent laws worldwide over decades, centuries & millennia, e.g. "Platonic love" (that wasn't Platonic), the "beardless youth" fetish, & the "pet children" of Greek & Roman antiquity; of course the kiddy-fiddlers will never stop pushing for a return to something like that, but should we gift them all with the accolade "activist"? If they advocate harming kids & push for the legalisation of child rape, of course we shouldn't!
So, the grossly innapropriate & blanket use of "activist" remains a weeping sore on the face of Wikipedia. It's not my first time with this issue, & I continue to have serious ongoing concerns & I'm clearly not alone. Previously I've done a cleanup edit here re the conspiracy lies & criminal harassment endured by survivors/families of the Sutherland Springs church shooting, again replacing the WP:UNDUE "activists" with "agitators", & this has been the accepted text since May 2022. I hope no one is seriously suggesting that this edit & the others there should be reverted. Similarly, I changed the descriptor in the lead for that poisonous fraud Andrew Wakefield given the amount of blood he has on his hands (especially of god-knows-how-many maimed & dead children, e.g. the Samoan measles epidemic), but it was soon reverted with a similar unconvincing excuse. This should also be revisited, as should far too many others.
On the issue of believing "activist" is neutral, is there any possibility that this is a quirk of different varieties of English? North American English seems wildly blasé about applying the term, but my understanding is that British Commonwealth English (including Australian English) is more selective in its perceived meaning of the word, & this article is about an Australasian person & tagged as using Australian English. What do you think?
So, in summary, "activist' is non-neutral (maybe a feature of Australian English?) & should go. "Agitator" (given Sewell's agitprop) is an more-than-appropriate replacement. Anyone got a better one? Cheers! Bluevista99 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluevista99 I’m an American but TarnishedPath is an Aussie I believe, and we seem to have about the same perception of the word. I really don’t think your perception of the word is a widespread one, and you present it without evidence that this is a word with a positive meaning. As we have both shown, this term is widespread on Wikipedia even in cases of flagrantly immoral activism, e.g. pedophilia, and perhaps even has a negative connotation. Personally my association is neutral to negative, makes me think of zealotry and extremism. I think giving actual child rapists this descriptor shows that it is not a positive one. Agitator is very clearly non neutral and is not widely used by sources in comparison - it should not be used unless it is widely and overwhelmingly the common descriptor used to refer to the subject. Your edits on Sutherland Springs present NPOV issues, but no one really watched those kinds of pages except for blatant vandalism if it’s not right after it happened. If I was getting that article to GA, which this article is, I would require that blatant editorializing be removed (it is not in the source). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluevista99, in the example I gave of Moira Deeming, she's an Australian politician so I would presume that most of the people editing her article would be likely to be Australian. Yet I've had to clean up the article on a few occasions after someone (good chance of them being far-right) has added "LGTB activists" or "Trans right activists" to characterise counter protestors that showed up to Posie Parker's event in Melbourne. My reason for removing the terms, was because reliable sources didn't use those terms.
On the topic of Sewell, if there were more than a few sources referring to him as an agitator or a provocateur I would have no problem with using either of those descriptors. However that's not the case. There are however sources which refer to him as an activist. WP:NPOV demands that we go with the reliable sources. I'm not going to comment on the article you bring up because I don't edit it or care about it. TarnishedPathtalk 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Sewell_(neo-Nazi)&oldid=1265399752"